what's the point of fencing

Ah yes, guns there may be but, my cut and thust will never run out of bullets.

I started to take fencing in Jr. College but when the instructor berated me for disarming my opponent, I knew I was playing with the wrong kind of weapon...from my point of view, if someone attacks me with a long, sharp, pointy thing, I am either going to disarm them or injur them severely...I kinda thought (at the time) disarmament was the better choice.

The point of fencing????.......you mean it IS'NT,"put the pointy end in the other guy ; )

Okay, I'll bite:

FIrst off, shame on you for calling me a narrow-minded cretin: I had already staked out the moral high ground in this debate and I shan't cede it to anyone at this time. =)

From what I can see, most of the moder fencers that are pissed off are that way because of political reasons ("Waah! They took away action X!" or "BooHoo! The ref won't call my action!" .... to which I say "Improvise, adapt and overcome... and stop crying on my jacket. These things are freakin' expensive!.'). There are some that advocate returning to the pre-electronic scoring days, but I see that as impractical, given the current state of affairs. Most clubs, retailers and manufacturers have too much invested in scoring machinery to throw it all out and start anew with "four good judges and a president of the strip."

But back to the question at hand, which, in my mind is "Why is rapier fighting more fun for you than fencing?" I'll have to stick with what I know, and hope that you will supply the other side of things, since the only "rapier fighting" persons that I have seen were pretty unskilled. We fought our way and theirs and I beat them both ways, so I dunno.

I would suggest that, although both main forms are similar (footwork, attacks, parries, ripostes, certain aspects of timing and distance in association with each of these, etc.), that rapier fighting for you is more fun because it feels more "authentic". Technically speaking, if you accept my premise, there is no difference: a riposte from sixte in epee' is the same as a riposte from sixte in rapier. So is it just the "silliness in the rulesets" that bother you about Modern Fencing? You seem to suggest that in some way rapier fighting is "better". In what way? Are the attacks different? Attack me in low line and I'll parry octave or septime (or maybe seconde or prime, depending on how I'm feeling). Allow me to riposte: if you parry too slowly or ineffectively, I'll hit you. To take an idea from another post "Hand me a stick, a pole, a broom, a pool stick or etc and I will defend myself quite practically in the here and now." To which I would add "If you're going up against a competent fencer, expect to be in one hell of a fight!"

In sum, you have found a school of thought on swordsmanship that accords with your idea of what it should be. It's based - in large part - on the same technical theories that govern Modern Fencing, and yet you feel obliged to sneer at your artistic cousin with the New-Age, techno-geek, see-thru helmet and the tighty-whitey short pants(Okay, I agree the helmet *does* look pretty stupid...). I say "Different strokes..." fella. And, BTW, your doublet is *really* ugly. Look me up if you're ever in town and I'll offer you a pinch of snuff... or a bout or two.

-=Thomas

Hi this is Alex again. what you are talking about with the guy with the cane and suit case is exactly my point about why SCA training can easily be applied towards real life self defense. In my opinion it is quite ironic that SCA heavy weapons training is probably one of the best places to learn weapon technique for self defense even though they make no claim whatsoever that their technique can be used for that purpose on their official web site or in any of their publications. I have checked out the possibility of continuing my studies of weapon technique with other schools that actually do claim to be "martial arts" groups however I was quite unimpressed with them. The main problem I had with all other non SCA groups was that they refuse to fight at full power or they refuse to spar at all. In other words they pull their technique instead of striking their opponent at full power. The basic problem seems to be that they refuse to use proper armor or they make up all kinds of excuses and brainwash their students into thinking that it is not important to emphasize power in their strikes. Most groups that do sparring with weapons don't even cover the back of their heads properly thereby indicating that their fighting style is in fact linear rather than lateral.
as for fencing I found it fun for one semester in jr. college but I then decided If I was going to do a combative sport it would make a lot more sense to learn one that can also be applied to self defense and this decision did in fact save my own life. In my case I was attacked by a drug dealers body guard outside of a bar for no apparent reason. Being more than twice my weight he had pinned me to the ground and was trying to prevent me from counter attacking with the tire drop down tube I had managed to grab off the seat of my car. He was trying to bash my head into the ground so I simply gave him a rap to the back of his head taking off a good part of his scalp.
I figured he had a knife or gun so I decided to attack in order to prevent him from drawing a weapon. It turns out that he did in fact have a switch blade knife but since I knocked him out with a snap shot he never got to use it. The charges against me for assault were eventually dropped. I figured it would be better to be alive than face an assault charge and I don't regret my decisions.
As for the SCA I would probably still go to their fight practice at the Bart station but I don't like being insulted by their hierarchy. They said it was" bad form" for me to push a weapon aside with my vambrace instead of using my weapon and I simply did not agree. I have seen belted fighters intentionally deflect weapons with their armor many times in "SCA wars" and I can not tolerate double standards in the rule set that allow them to do so while preventing non belted fighters from doing the same thing. If they want to over extend their definition of grappling then it should at least be over extended the same way to everyone. If they decide to apologize to me I will come back otherwise I will not participate further. I also don't like the head martial telling me "we don't make arm blows intentionally" referring to the heavy weapons fighting. This is not a real SCA heavy combat rule and if the "head martial" thinks it's ok to lie then he should be removed from his position.
I'm willing to overlook the goofy rule telling people to fight from their knees even though a broken femur would not allow a person to do so but to me it's just another lame rule that should be tossed out. Lets just face it if someone’s upper leg were broken or severely injured they would be on the ground and not on their knees. If someone were to fight from their knees against an opponent with a shield the easiest place for them to land a blow would be the lower leg of their opponent. Therefore it seems to me the entire fight from the point where one person is on their knees and the other is standing becomes almost totally unrealistic and is a waist of time. I'm only interested in technique that simulates historical weapons combat and not technique that attempts to create a live action fantasy game. It seems to me that if the SCA heavy weapons fighters didn't care at all about simulating medieval combat then there would be no point in ignoring blows that are "too light" and there also would be no point in fighting with heavy weapons at all. So I'm sorry I don't buy this guy "Animals" argument that SCA fighting is intended only as a game of fantasy. If people like "Animal" want to play a fantasy game then they should play D&D or something with boffers since they are corrupting the game and the rules for the people who are interested in learning weapons technique as it would be on a game based on being a simulation. This same situation occurs in the combat flight sims computer game community by the way. For example there is a split between the players that want to see icons giving away the nationality and position of the aircraft modeled in the game while the other group of players want a more realistic game where one must decide who is on who's side by recognizing the shape or marking on the aircraft. To me this is nothing more than the same old battle between simmers and fantasy gamers. If people refuse to take sides or voice opinions then gradually over time there will be so much over emphasis on fake safety rules that there will be only the fantasy gamers left. If someone tells me that I can't push aside my opponents weapon with my vambrace because it is supposed to be "too unsafe" to do that it is up to me to decide if they are bullshitting me or not.